« Sunday Morning Happy Ending Post | Main | This Is What It Looks Like When Nationalism Eats Your Soul »
August 19, 2007
Shorter James Kirchick: I can’t get laid because of “liberal intolerance”
By Kathy G.
This is a little old, but better late than never.
It’s a piece by James Kirchick, a New Republic writer who happens to be Martin Peretz’s assistant. He’s a wanker of the first order, but interesting because he embodies a lot of the worst tendencies of “centrist” (read: neoconservative) media discourse in general and the New Republic in particular.
In this piece, he bitches about how hard it is to find a date when you’re gay and conservative. But he doesn’t blame that on the paucity of out, gay conservatives. Instead, it’s somehow the liberals’ fault. Here’s his reaction after his most recent boyfriend dumps him, allegedly because of their different political orientations:
So much for dating a proud, progressive, and ostensibly tolerant liberal. But with him, as with other liberals I know, tolerance does not always extend to appreciating someone else’s differing political views. Now living in Cambridge and having grown up in the suburbs of Boston and gone to school at Yale, I’ve been surrounded by liberals for nearly all of my life. Most would be astonished to hear that they’re the most intolerant people I’ve ever met.Where do I even begin with this?
First of all, Kirchick has a confused notion about what tolerance is. Tolerance is a civic virtue, not a personal one. It means that you have the right to freely express your political and religious views without government interference. It means you have the right to be free from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. It means that your neighbors and co-workers are obligated to treat you with respect.
But dude, “tolerance” does not mean anyone is required to like you, be your friend, or want to date you. Let alone fuck you.
Secondly, he doesn’t seem to have any real understanding of why so many gay men are not exactly big fans of conservatism. Well, let me spell it out for him: for the GLBT community, politics is not some abstract realm. It is a life and death issue. Countless GLBT men and women have died because of homophobia -- from hate crimes, suicide, and the delayed government response to AIDS. And the conservative movement is the force in this country which has legitimized and institutionalized the hate.
I realize that, more and more, the AIDS crisis is falling out of our public consciousness. I’m probably sounding like the Ancient Mariner here, but I remember walking the streets of New York City in the early and mid-90s, where every day I would see men in the prime of life with skin covered with lesions and sores, so frail they could barely walk. AIDS was, and continues to be, a national tragedy, and it should never be forgotten that many thousands of people in this country died from it needlessly, because of the inaction and outright hatred of conservative politicians.
It’s interesting that in this piece, Kirchick avoids identifying himself as a conservative. He describes himself as a libertarian – always a sure give-away that yes, of course you’re a conservative, but too ashamed to identify as such, given the gigantic clusterfuck conservatism has been in practice. He also smugly alludes to his “political independence.” Yeah, that’s real “independent” of him – holding wingnut views on everything from Iraq and Cuba to unions and the minimum wage, but being liberal only on the one issue where his self-interest is involved, gay rights.
Kirchick mentions the Mary Matalin/James Carville relationship as if it’s a model he’d like to emulate. Excuse me while I vomit. I know the media likes to portray that relationship like it’s some sort of cute Hepburn-and-Tracy romantic comedy. But I find the two of them repulsive, and their relationship to be the ultimate in shallow Beltway careerism, cynicism, and mutual exploitation. And the exploitation may actually be a lot more one-sided than it appears, given that Carville reportedly leaked information about John Kerry’s election strategy to his wife (who, let’s not forget, is a top aide to He Who Shall Not Be Named).
Kirchick’s best bet would probably be to stick to dating conservatives. And there certainly are more than a few gay, conservative men out there. Oh, but wait . . . they’re mostly a bunch of creepy closet cases. Now whose fault is that, I wonder? Hint: not the liberals’.
August 19, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
There's always Andrew Sullivan, but I'm not sure he's much of a conservative anymore. I think being a jerk is a job requirement for working for Peretz.
Posted by: beckya57 | Aug 19, 2007 3:34:13 PM
I am not gay, nor conservative, but I know gay conservatives, and your second to the last sentence is an unsupported slam, and not terribly funny.
I am very liberal, but I can tell you that many many liberals are in fact, very intolerant of others. Conservatives are too. It is a human trait that we should all be aware of.
As a liberal, I cannot speak to the conservative experience, but I do find that many people, are horribly informed, and most people pick liberal or conservative based more on their family and friends than on any deep understanding of their history, their values, or an educated knowledge of the issues. Hey, we're only human, and it's naive to assume that many people's political thoughts or policy preferences are terribly well thought out. And more naive to think these people realize that. Liberals included.
That said, I am astounded this guy would think that a breakup based on different political values is in anyway noteworthy, or can be blamed on some specific group's hidden intolerance.
And I agree completely about Matalin/Carville. Yuck.
Are you the Kathy (or Kate?) G that occasionally comments at Brad DeLong's blog?
Posted by: anon | Aug 19, 2007 3:44:13 PM
Kirchick’s best bet would probably be to stick to dating conservatives.
Or, you know, move. It's not as if there are no really conservative places in the country where the dread liberal might be scarce on the ground. He can get on I-95 South and just keep going until he hits South Carolina. He could offer us paeans to the the native tolerance that he finds there, so as to better instruct us how to behave.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Aug 19, 2007 3:46:16 PM
anon, no, I haven't commented on DeLong's blog. I do read it regularly, though.
Posted by: Kathy G. | Aug 19, 2007 4:00:56 PM
Yet there’s a common, unattractive feature that many conservative gay men share: a serious chip on their shoulder. Being part of a community that is so intolerant of their views, gay conservatives can be embittered, patronizing, and castigatory of their gay brothers. It’s not a particularly attractive attitude.
Ya think?
Posted by: nolo | Aug 19, 2007 4:18:28 PM
What's the difference between a gay liberal and a gay conservative?
A gay liberal likes to watch "The Sound of Music" for Julie Andrews.
A gay conservative likes to watch "The Sound of Music" for the Nazis.
I'm not being intolerant, I truly believe gays should be allowed to hate immigrants too.
Posted by: J.R. | Aug 19, 2007 4:36:35 PM
Best post ever!
Posted by: chris | Aug 19, 2007 4:59:09 PM
Kirchick sez: a few weeks after we broke up, I asked him for his reasons.
Gay or straight, anyone who weeks later wants to know to know 'why' enough to ask the nay-sayer is a cretin that is not only without a clue, but also completely void of social awareness (and fully deserves to work directly for Marty Peretz).
SomeCallMeTim suggests a relocation to 'traditional values' wingnutland, but that would likely force Kirchick to go back into the closet instead of having the social freedom he has in liberal Boston - the freedom his conservative/GOP pals would deny to all gays. What a wanking hypocrite!
I'm glad he's found a BF, which he'd better try to hang on to, because there might not be another foolish enough to tolerate him, even for just sex. (Is Kirchick a libertarian or conservative in bed?)
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Aug 19, 2007 5:17:36 PM
Tolerance is a civic virtue, not a personal one.
It's plainly both.
But dude, “tolerance” does not mean anyone is required to like you, be your friend, or want to date you. Let alone fuck you.
And he makes no such claim. He criticizes the reason for the refusals, not the right to make them.
And the conservative movement is the force in this country which has legitimized and institutionalized the hate.
I think tolerance involves seeing people as individuals and not merely as types. Does Kirchik favor the hate?
Excuse me while I vomit. I know the media likes to portray that relationship like it’s some sort of cute Hepburn-and-Tracy romantic comedy. But I find the two of them repulsive, and their relationship to be the ultimate in shallow Beltway careerism, cynicism, and mutual exploitation. And the exploitation may actually be a lot more one-sided than it appears, given that Carville reportedly leaked information about John Kerry’s election strategy to his wife (who, let’s not forget, is a top aide to He Who Shall Not Be Named).
Shameless. You're the cynical one, speaking ill of a personal relationship you apparently know virtually nothing about, repeating groundless accusations and wallowing in hate. Ugh. That there is less of this kind of shit here than at many other blogs is one reason I like Ezra's blog.
There was an interesting thread related to this earlier this year.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 5:23:28 PM
He criticizes the reason for the refusals, not the right to make them.
Sanpete, he's making a value judgment saying that it is a moral/ethical wrong to make refusals on this basis. By contrast, I believe it is a moral/ethical imperative to making romantic decisions based on your own value systems. Anything else is a compromise (though, sometimes, a perfectly understandable and reasonable compromise). The thing is, where he lives, there are plenty of possible romantic partners whose personal value systems are more in line with what they're looking for.
It's plainly both.
The obligation is on you to explain how. People's personal relationships are just that-- personal. Some people have no interest in dating the bearded, the brown-eyed, or the non-Christian. That someone would refuse to date the conservative-- particularly when the politics of conservatism so keenly impact the individual -- is not in any way surprising or unvirtuous, any more than it would be a surprise to expect an African-American to marry a supporter or segregationists.
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 19, 2007 5:46:39 PM
Tyro, yes, he's making a value judgment that it's intolerant to limit your personal relationships to those who share your political beliefs.
I agree that romantic decisions ought to reflect personal values. If your most fundamental personal values are to be a good person, then politics need not be a barrier. Those who think it is are, I think, intolerant, unwilling to consider anything deeper than politics in an individual.
There's nothing at all in the concept of tolerance that excludes it from personal relationships, where it's just as important as on the larger scale. (Look up the definition and see for yourself if you can find anything that limits it.) You think it's tolerant and morally fine for someone to refuse to associate personally with gays or blacks, or would you view such a person as a bigot?
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 6:13:37 PM
You think it's tolerant and morally fine for someone to refuse to associate personally with gays or blacks, or would you view such a person as a bigot?
Interesting that you consider being black or gay to be analagous to holding a political belief system.
You repeatedly and consistently in all of your posts deny that political/moral beliefs mean things.
And, no, I would not consider a person who would refuse to marry or date someone who does not share the same moral framework to be bigoted. I'd consider the person to be realistic.
The opening sentence of the article linked to is the author being told "I can’t date someone with a different belief system." The fact that you think that this is "bigoted" and "intolerant" says a lot about how vacuous and nihilistic you are. If we actually believe in our value systems and belief systems, they are about our values. He's not being told "you're not a good person" (though if a person told me he thought that the use of torture and a desire to dismantle the government safety net were part of acceptable policy, yes, I might doubt his status as a good person).
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 19, 2007 6:24:17 PM
I probably wouldn't be able to successfully date a very devout Roman Catholic (it's not come up yet) because I would disagree with a number of their beliefs surrounding sexual intimacy and birth control. That's not because I am intolerant of Roman Catholicism. Condoms are just non-negotiable for me. When I - and most anybody else - make decisions about potential partners I'm necessarily going to weigh a bunch of personal factors about what is important to me in a relationship and people's political views inform their personal characteristics. Kirchick's boy friend did go out with him in the first place, it's not like he rejected a conservative partner out of hand. But things didn't work out, and politics was one reason. I bet there were others too, but this is what Kirchick is focusing on. He's hurt, and he has a platform. I get it. I wish him luck. Get back out there James, don't let this eat at you, plenty of love out there for everyone.
Posted by: justin | Aug 19, 2007 6:36:24 PM
Kathy:
Good job!
Posted by: Frank de Libero | Aug 19, 2007 6:44:09 PM
Sanpete, I think I could date someone who was a Republican if she were a "good person." For example, being a good person, if that Republican supported better tax policies which increased marginal tax rates on high-earners and hedge fund manager fees, was against the Iraq war and the use of torture, wanted to spend government revenues to improve public services and infrastructure, supported universal health coverage policies, and voted for Kerry in 2004, then, yes, I would not have a problem with the fact that person were a conservative Republican.
I know what you're going to say, "Well, that doesn't count, because deep inside she wasn't really a conservative Republican if she did all those things." Let me explain something to you Sanpete: There is no "deep inside." A "good person" who has a good value system does good things and supports good causes. If a person is being rejected, in part, because he or she does not share the same value system as his or her romantic partner, it is because his or her outward actions and decisions reflect this value system. And if you can't make choices about whom to associate with based on their actions and decisions, then what the hell are you supposed to base your choices on?
Values mean things. Beliefs mean things. If you don't act on them, you don't hold them. People who hold deviant, right-wing beliefs systems are those who take actions on the basis of and in support of those beliefs. Sometimes you can work around that with a friend or intimate. Sometimes you can't. And if those belief systems are the basis of one's career, as Mr. Kirchick's are, given his profession, it's pretty likely that one can't "work around it."
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 19, 2007 7:05:56 PM
You repeatedly and consistently in all of your posts deny that political/moral beliefs mean things.
Bullshit, Tyro. Haven't done that here; haven't done it elsewhere. Your imagination is running wild. You also didn't answer the question; you made up your own that was easier for you to answer without contradicting yourself. If you want a fuller explanation of my actual views, instead of your imagined version, you can find it in the other thread I linked to.
If we actually believe in our value systems and belief systems, they are about our values. He's not being told "you're not a good person"
He's being told he's a good person with bad values? How does that work?
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 7:09:03 PM
By contrast, I believe it is a moral/ethical imperative to making romantic decisions based on your own value systems.
Absolutely. Is there a more valid reason for not wanting to date someone than what they believe in and value?
Posted by: Antid Oto | Aug 19, 2007 7:16:40 PM
Your mistake, Tyro, which is very typical of partisans on both sides of issues with moral implications, is that you confuse ends, which are most closely tied with values, with means, which may differ even if the values and ends are the same. Your explanation of a "good person" illustrates this perfectly, all about means, not ends and values. Conservatives want people to prosper and be happy. They disagree with you about some of the means.
Given what you say, and the black way you sometimes portray conservatives, this confusion very probably leads you to see yourself as morally better than conservatives, despite your confused comment that this isn't about whether Kirchick is a good person. If you don't believe that, what you're saying doesn't make sense. Big mistake. And yes, intolerant and bigoted.
Is there a more valid reason for not wanting to date someone than what they believe in and value?
How superficial you want to be about that?
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 7:26:30 PM
James Kirchick is merely repeating a conservative talking point I have heard many times before, "Liberals are awfully intolerant for all their talk about tolerance." Jame's diatribe is just another angle.
For me the "Liberal vs. Conservative" game goes much deeper than values. At this point, for me it is about the last thirty years of Conservatives painting liberals as Satan's representatives on earth. The words of people like Reagan, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Beck, Dobson and conservatives I have met on blogs are indelibly etched into my brain. Most notably, those who proclaim that anyone that cannot afford health insurance should be left to die.
I would be best described as a Social Liberal, the category so often slandered by conservatives and their libertarian stepchildren. I believe that we as a society have a responsibility to help everyone achieve their potential and enjoy the many benefits offered by our modern society. Over the last thirty years, too much has been said by these conservatives about Social Liberals and these things cannot be unsaid.
So, I guess it is true, I am intolerant. But this intolerance is not bigotry. People who lack empathy and understanding for those who are less fortunate than themselves and subscribe to social Darwinism are simply not worth my time.
Posted by: Joelio | Aug 19, 2007 7:54:41 PM
I shouldn't be surprised that some gay men, like some straight men, feel entitled to have their cocks sucked on a regular basis without having to go through the effort of being pleasant enough to have volunteers.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Aug 19, 2007 8:02:50 PM
Sanpete, what was all that you should have learned growing up about the fact that the ends do not justify the means? As I said, you're confusing "deep inside" and "good intentions" with what is the real, the tangible, the resultant. There is no "deep inside." "Deep down" the conservative wants people to be happy, so he needs to pass laws to prevent gays from marrying. "Deep down," the conservative wants to stop terrorism, so he supports the use of torture against suspects. How the hell is that person a "good person"? The means are the ends.
Beliefs have consequences, elections, have consequences, actions have consequences. Actions taken in service to a belief system result in lost jobs, changes in laws, access to benefits or denial of benefits. They are tangible things that have tangible effects. You consistently and repeatedly deny the very
He's being told he's a good person with bad values? How does that work?
No, he's being told their differing value systems make for an incompatible relationship. I did not get much more detail about that particular issue from the article. You're telling every person whose relationship comes apart because of religious differences a bigot? If that's not a sign of nihilism, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 19, 2007 8:04:18 PM
It's bigotry, Joelio, if it's based on irrational prejudice rather than actual fact. Your view that conservatives lack empathy for those less fortunate and subscribe to social darwinism sounds like prejudice to me. It may be true in some cases, but as a stereotype it's quite overdone by those who lack empathy for conservatives and think they aren't worth their time.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 8:08:53 PM
If your most fundamental personal values are to be a good person, then politics need not be a barrier.
Except that being a good, thoughtful person with strong moral values is mutually exclusive from voting for Republicans. I have a lot of Republican relatives and I love them, but I consider their voting patterns to be a distressing signal of moral degeneracy and/or intellectual laziness. Trying to sugarcoat that is pointless. At best, people are complex and can be good people in one aspect and not in others. But I personally demand a certain moral stoutness across the board in someone I share my life with, and that's mutually exclusive from conservative politics.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Aug 19, 2007 8:09:10 PM
Let a gay man chime on this. Fuck gay conservatives. Where the fuck were they 20 years ago while the rest were out there struggling to get them the rights that they so much now enjoy? Hiding in the closet, trying to work the system.
And as for dating them. Sorry, but been there, done that. It really is a mind fuck if you have had the opportunity to date a gay conservative. It's even more of a jedi mind trick if they are gay, conservative and another minority group like black or latino.
Some here would reduce as per usual this conversation to meaningless abstraction. But, in the real world where you are trying to find your soul mate (however hopeless naive of me to even want that) it's certainly not going to happen if you are from earth, and the other guy is from Pluto, and says shit like "I'm American first, gay second." Like the rest of us aren't Americans. Or other such words of wisdom. Trust me- I could go on with a lot of personal first hand experiences, but what would be the point?
At the end of the day- here's what sums it up- we all want to find a place where we belong. If this guy can't understand that includes sharing the same values, that's his fucking problem, and he has bigger issues than dating to address.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 19, 2007 8:12:54 PM
Having suffered through mini marty's wretched oeuvre over at TNR, I truly sense that his long suffering liberal boyfriends may not break up due to his politics. Their scampering away from their prison like relationship may have more to do with the fact that mini appears to be - at least in his writings - an insufferable little shit. He spends too much of his time "outraged", or "appalled", or "offended". Being with such a thin skinned hysteric, of any politic stripe would try the patience of a saint.
Posted by: dekerivers | Aug 19, 2007 8:13:07 PM
Oh, and ditto what Amanda said. The idea that I am suppose to share my life with someone who doesn't share my values- is asking way too much.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 19, 2007 8:15:26 PM
Finally, can people please stop arguing with Sanpete. Nothing he says is ever about reality. It's about the argument for arguments sake. It's not nihilism because it's not meant to be taken seriously as that.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 19, 2007 8:18:52 PM
You're telling every person whose relationship comes apart because of religious differences a bigot? If that's not a sign of nihilism, I don't know what is.
Tyro, you have severe problems sticking to what is said rather than letting your imagination take over.
The means are the ends? You really are confused. And all this talk about deep inside? Where's that coming from? Your way of viewing these things is no more than a simplistic license to dismiss the good will and moral standing of those you disagree with. Very convenient, no doubt, but it comes at the price of misrepresenting reality, among other costs.
Many social conservatives believe we'll be happier if we follow God's and/or Nature's ways in regard to sexuality. Edwards seems to be among them as far as same-sex marriage goes, as do the other Democratic candidates except Kucinich. All immoral people, of course. If only they were as good as you are, they'd see the light!
Many conservatives believe killing is justified to prevent killing (war). They feel much the same way about torture, that it may be justified in some cases to prevent even worse things. This doesn't imply they have different fundamental values than you do, unless maybe you consider torture worse than murder, which would be a pretty confused view. You understand as much about conservative values and reasons as you want to.
I have a lot of Republican relatives and I love them, but I consider their voting patterns to be a distressing signal of moral degeneracy and/or intellectual laziness.
Of course you do, Amanda. I'm sure they feel the same way about you. Both sides have "this self-righteous superiority complex," as you put it.
Akaison, in the real world conservatives and liberals do intermarry. Shocking, I know, but it happens, contrary to your imagination. You always have a ready excuse not to face the arguments against your views.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 8:43:41 PM
A very long time ago, I seriously dated someone whose politics were a complete 180 from mine. The reason I dated him was because he was (besides being goodlooking and reasonably intelligent) honest, gallant, and romantic. But we spent the entire 10 months we dated having really awful arguments about everything more weighty than what to do that evening or how lovely the hiking trail was. At many points, trying to balance being courteous and affectionate with being true to my own beliefs, my own self,I truly felt like I was going crazy.
Differences in politics, particularly deep and wide ones, aren't trivialities. In this case, there's not even the virtue of their political differences being mostly theorectical. Gay liberals and gay conservatives have fundamentally differing politics regarding the very basics of gay identity: the differences hit them right where they live.
It's not 'intolerant' to realize you can't share your life with someone who doesn't share your deepest beliefs, particularly when those beliefs are about your worth as a human being.
I would say, in fact, the intolerance is in expecting someone to continue a relationship under those circumstances.
Posted by: CaseyL | Aug 19, 2007 8:53:22 PM
I shouldn't be surprised that some gay men, like some straight men, feel entitled to have their cocks sucked on a regular basis without having to go through the effort of being pleasant enough to have volunteers.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Aug 19, 2007 8:02:50 PM
This is typical Amanda Marcotte ignorance and bigotry.
Yes Amanda, I am not surprised to find that there are women that like to be eaten out, that don't like to eat out other women, or give blow jobs to men.
Amanda, you have said many times how you think blowjobs are disgusting, echoing TF in denouncing the penis and a spunk filled sausage.
We have heard you decry married women that give blowjobs for their own reasons, though we have seen you hypocritically claim you think that blowjobs are just fine for gay people.
Amanda,
you are a bigot.
Why don't you just recuse yourself whenever blowjobs come up. You have an axe to grind, and you grind it.
You're a hate-filled bigot Mandy.
Posted by: anon | Aug 19, 2007 8:55:52 PM
Sanpete, everything you have written in this diary to anyone who is gay and who has faced real bigotry, or who is black and has faced real biogry, is deeply offensive. And let me get this straight (no pun intended) but you as a probably straight white male are going to tell me as a black gay male what s the reality with regards to being gay and dating? Are you fucking serious? You have some real issues you need to work out, and this isn't the place to do it.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 19, 2007 8:57:22 PM
Except that being a good, thoughtful person with strong moral values is mutually exclusive from voting for Republicans. I have a lot of Republican relatives and I love them, but I consider their voting patterns to be a distressing signal of moral degeneracy and/or intellectual laziness. Trying to sugarcoat that is pointless. At best, people are complex and can be good people in one aspect and not in others. But I personally demand a certain moral stoutness across the board in someone I share my life with, and that's mutually exclusive from conservative politics.
This is more intolerant bullshit from a hate-monger.
In fact, Amanda Marcotte is just the kind of ignorant intolerant holier than thou twit that proves Kirchick's point.
If you believe Amanda's claim, then no one can vote Republican and be moral. Presumably even Amanda agrees that not every Democrat is a moral voter too.
So what have we left, Amanda clearly feels that the vast majority of voters have poor morals, and coincidentally you can't have good morals unless you vote the way she votes.
Amanda Marcotte is an embarrassment to progressive liberals. Why? Because James Kirchick and other douchebags can so easily point to her well published hateful screeds against people she disagrees with and can so easily point to the many liberal bloggers that won't call her out on her hate speech.
Posted by: anon | Aug 19, 2007 9:01:18 PM
As for all this talk of bigotry and intollerance, let me use a line from Savage Love--
"Some of you use the words in such a way as to render the words meaningless."
But, that's rather the point now isn't it?
Posted by: akaison | Aug 19, 2007 9:02:32 PM
You have some real issues you need to work out, and this isn't the place to do it.
[sigh]
Well, it's a nice thought, anyway...
Posted by: Captain Goto | Aug 19, 2007 9:02:41 PM
And for those reality challenged- its practically meaningless to call everything including differences of views as intollerance or bigotry because those words can then mean no one is ever a bigot as it has meant to be used. Instead everyone is now equally a bigot. Well, I don't like purple shoes- opps I am a bigot. You don't like murder, opps, you are a bigot too. The other person doesn't like disenfranchisement of black voters in Ohio in 2004, opps, a bigot for saying that. You don't like that healthcare plan? Well, you are a bigot and are saying that because you are black. That's how silly this discussion is.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 19, 2007 9:05:23 PM
Sanpete, everything you have written in this diary to anyone who is gay and who has faced real bigotry, or who is black and has faced real biogry, is deeply offensive. And let me get this straight (no pun intended) but you as a probably straight white male are going to tell me as a black gay male what s the reality with regards to being gay and dating? Are you fucking serious? You have some real issues you need to work out, and this isn't the place to do it.
Posted by: akaison
I'm sorry akaison, but I just don't see it that way. I don't always agree with Sanpete, and don't necessarily agree with him here, but having gone over everything he had written here, I just don't see it being "deeply offensive" to anyone who is gay.
I dislike your use of "gay and black" as some sort of moral trump card to pull out to persuade others to demean Sanpete's contributions.
It is very similar to Amanda's use of "vaginal human" as some sort of trump card to claim oppression and moral superiority and an excuse to disrespect others.
Let's not turn Ezraklein into a new Pandagon.
Posted by: anon | Aug 19, 2007 9:08:56 PM
That's funny akaison, I think we agree on that point about bigotry. It's how I felt about your claim that what Sanpete wrote was not just offensive, but deeply offensive.
But Amanda's bigotry against marriage, and married sex, (as well as towards fathers and Catholics and white men in general) is by now well documented. All you have to do is google.
Interesting place to start: look at gay and transgendered websites to see how they view Amanda.
Posted by: anon | Aug 19, 2007 9:11:53 PM
It's not 'intolerant' to realize you can't share your life with someone who doesn't share your deepest beliefs, particularly when those beliefs are about your worth as a human being.
What are you referring to, Casey? Your boyfriend didn't respect your worth as a human being?
I had an experience similar to yours, but more over religion vs. atheism, among other things. The arguments drove the woman involved crazy, but I found it rather exhilarating because we were having open, deep discussions. I had my turn at misery when she told me she wouldn't marry a man who couldn't respect her beliefs, which seemed impossible for me to do, even though my disrespect was inconsistent with my overall view of her. It was quite a fundamental challenge to some of my own views of myself and others. Anyway, very difficult on a personal level.
Akaison, I don't know what you're blathering about. What are you deeply offended by?
its practically meaningless to call everything including differences of views as intollerance or bigotry
Indeed. Good thing no one here does this.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 9:27:58 PM
Anon,
You are engaged in little mind fucks designed to win debates but not approach conversations honestly.
I mean this part that you write is cute, but it shows your hand:
"I dislike your use of "gay and black" as some sort of moral trump card to pull out to persuade others to demean Sanpete's contributions."
I am talking about being gay in a diary that's about, well, being gay. It's this kind of mind fuck that I am referring to above when I point out your manipulative use of words like "bigotry" and "intollerance." Those words don't mean shit when you use them because they are really just designed to make people go on the defense. And to that, I say fuck you and Sanpete, and the faux argument horse you road into the diary on.
And oh, it's precisely this manipulation of language to render it meaningless that is offensive.
Here's another quote from Savage that sums up the point:
"And finally, to Rob in Albany who felt my aside was proof of my intolerance and hypocrisy: Joking about Christianity isn’t evidence that I’m intolerant—hell, I’m perfectly willing to tolerate Christians. I have never, for instance, attempted to prevent Christians from marrying each other, or tried to stop them from adopting children, or worked to make it illegal for them to hold certain jobs. I don’t threaten to boycott companies that market their products to Christians, and I don’t organize letter-writing campaigns to complain about Christian characters on television.
It would indeed be hypocritical for me to complain about fundamentalist Christians who’ve done all of the above to gay people if I turned around and did the same thing to Christians—but, again, I’ve done no such thing. Intolerant? Hell, I’m a model of tolerance! Oh sure, I joked about the Virgin Birth because I think it’s silly and sexphobic. And I’m free to say as much, however unpleasant it is for some Christians to hear. Fundamentalist Christians, for their part, are free to think homosexuality is sinful and unnatural, and they’re free to say so, however unpleasant it is for me to hear. But fundamentalists aren’t willing to just speak their piece, Rob. Nope, they seek to persecute people for being gay, and that’s where their low opinion of homosexuality—which, again, they have an absolute right to hold—transubstantiates into intolerance."
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/savage/2006/index0106.html
As long as you and Sanpete equate the difference about who one should date however implicitedly with bigotry such as what gays face or as equals without regard to context or circumstance or impact- you are offensive. It's offensive because you are saying you don't give a shit about the difference in impact, however, inplicitedl you do it, by causually throwing out words. And I don't give a shit that you don't get how you are offensive.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 19, 2007 9:38:19 PM
And Sanpete. Of course you don't know what I am blathering about- reality is hard for you. So anyone talkign about it will confuse you.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 19, 2007 9:40:16 PM
Akaison, you're arguing with yourself and offending yourself. I haven't said what you attribute to me. If that bit of reality matters to you. I think blanket beliefs that conservatives and liberals, gay or straight, can't or shouldn't date and marry are based in prejudice, and not in reality.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 10:05:00 PM
Sanpete, as I said work out your issues elsewhere. I am done playing with you in this thread.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 19, 2007 10:13:38 PM
Oy, you take a few hours off... :)
Without agreeing wholeheartedly with Kirchick, I think he has a point - the people who decide not to sleep with you because of your politics, all other things being equal, are picking an awfully narrow POV. "Yeah baby" doesn't really have a political spin to it. I'm not that fussy; there are things that I would turn down, but a hot conservative guy is really not one of them.
I'd rather not use toleranc/intolerance as the defining terms here; I think people getting called intolerant tends to set off alarms, and I think the idea isn't precise; what I find is that people have a lot of preordained judgments and conclusions about the opposite "political side" - and in a deeply liberal enclave like Cambridge, I find (living here) that people feel just fine leaping to those conclusions as a matter of course. Is it intolerant? I don't know, but I think it borders, at times, on being awfully rude, and more than a little judgmental.
I don't really understand entirely when politics moved so far up the laundry list as to be the deciding issue in dating. I think if you find someone smart, interesting and easy to talk to (and, well, sexually compatible), the specific views are not necessarily deal breakers. The couples I know have all sorts of tensions, about who likes Japanese food, who thinks Friedman is full of shit, the wife is Catholic and the husband's an atheist... you learn to accept things. My Dad was a black man who occasionally voted Republican. My mom is to this day a deeply liberal white lady. They loved each other very much; and they loved a good political argument. They didn't tolerate each other; they understood that they were not exactly alike, and that that makes things interesting. Too many people, I think, are looking for their reflection, not their complement. Kirchick may be whining more than is helpful (and I agree, don't ask your ex, unless you really want to know), but he's got a point. The divide shouldn't be so insurmountable. And if we did admit that "the other side" is human too, maybe we could start finding more points of similarity, and focus less on the most divisive. We won't agree on everything... but maybe we could agree, say, on dinner.
Posted by: weboy | Aug 19, 2007 10:33:54 PM
It becomes important at the point when its not abstraction, but real world consequence. I must repeat- I've dated conservative gay men. Dated guys in the marines. Dated libertarians. Dated one of the two or three gay b lack republicans that must exist out there. These aren't abstractions for me.
It's okay in the abstract to say "keep an open mind." But an open mind should not equal a lack of judgement about what these sort of things in terms of belief systems actually mean. The only way you can practically speaking coming to the conclusion you do is to divorce the practical truth from the abstract truth of being open minded. This is like that conversation I once had with a guy who wanted an "open relationship." He kept trying to convince me of the abstract truth of being in one, and I finally had to say- its the practice that matters, not what's theorectically possible. For Kirchick's bf, I suspect that's what it came down to.
I don't know how many times this needs to be said. If Iraq for you is an abstraction. If it's just a tool for you to decide which guy to screw, then sure, I can see why it doesn't matter. If race for you is an interesting side bar conversation for you rather than the lives of real people, then sure, it doesn't matter. But of course, you are then treating it like eye color or body type rather than representative of who the person is.
As always it depends on what your priorities are. If its sex, then yes, this is confusing because a cute mind maybe the only requirement, and not what that mind thinks.
I used to be one of those guys who had this fake sense of abstracted openness. That is until I met a great group of older gay men who have been in long term commited relationships. And then seeing them one see that the abstraction is meaningless. The real value is in what is actual. These men were together because they shared common values.
If its someone with whom you want to share a life, then yes it does matter. I mean a sociapath maybe brilliant, but I don't imagine wanting to spend the rest of my life with one.
In the same way that I could not share values with someone not out to his family or friends. not in a relationship. do i know closeted people or gay conservatives- sure. but thats hardly the point. the point is who do you want to spend your life with- and this is the question the bf probably had in his mind when in bed and looking at Kirchick. That's not intollerance. that's how relationships- at least the healthy one's work from what I've seen in actual long term committed relationships.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 19, 2007 10:57:17 PM
Hold on a second, is Kirchik telling us that Marty has changed course and suddenly decided to NOT date his "assistants" from work?
Now that is news.
Posted by: mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | Aug 19, 2007 11:15:50 PM
"Hold on a second, is Kirchik telling us that Marty has changed course and suddenly decided to NOT date his "assistants" from work?
Now that is news."
Hil-larious.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 19, 2007 11:26:33 PM
Sorry akaison, you are still playing your I'm more victimized than you card, thus doing a disservice to any soul that has been victimized and thinks they have some understanding of what that is like.
So not only are you gay, but you are gay and black.
Congratulations, you are now officially the most victimized member of this thread.
I am not engaged in any mind fucks, however, it appears that by tossing your trump cards left and right and badgering people that challenge them, you may be.
Whatever d00d.
Posted by: anon | Aug 20, 2007 12:36:08 AM
As long as you and Sanpete equate the difference about who one should date however implicitedly with bigotry such as what gays face or as equals without regard to context or circumstance or impact- you are offensive. It's offensive because you are saying you don't give a shit about the difference in impact, however, inplicitedl you do it, by causually throwing out words. And I don't give a shit that you don't get how you are offensive.
I truly think that's terrific akaison that you hold those views.
Now please show me where I said anything like that.
Posted by: anon | Aug 20, 2007 12:40:42 AM
using the word in the context of the conversation says it all anon. here's the think if you don't want people to misinterpet you - don't use loaded words.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 20, 2007 12:52:21 AM
and by the way you continue the childish game of pointing out that I mention that I am gay in a conversation about being gay. Thanks- I mean if I were to talk about dating women, it would sort of matter if I am straight or not, but I can see how that confuses you why in a conversation about gays- well someone being gay or not doesn't matter.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 20, 2007 12:56:44 AM
Sorry to inform you akaison, but this post isn't about your being gay. The post is about tolerance, liberal intolerance, and political views in the context of relationships.
Yes, Kirchick is gay and so are you. Oddly enough, heterosexual couples experience tolerance/intolerance wrt political views too. See, the world really doesn't revolve around your putz, and all of us can understand and relate to situations of intolerance as well as situations in romance.
I take it back by the way, you are black and gay, but there is still one other in this thread that is more persecuted and oppressed than you, because she is white and female and apparently an atheist. Sorry for having raised your hopes that way, but it turns out your trump card only goes so far, it's gold, but there is platinum.
Oh, how I love intolerant liberal identity politics. I say that as I lifelong liberal.
Using the word? Using what word? If you had read what I've actually written as opposed to what you project, you'll see I've never actually said anything like two people should be able to get together if they have differing political views. Or that if they can't, it must be bigotry. All I've said is that I find your claim that what Sanpete wrote to be not just offensive, but "deeply offensive" to be weak.
Posted by: anon | Aug 20, 2007 2:59:53 AM
the people who decide not to sleep with you because of your politics, all other things being equal, are picking an awfully narrow POV.
Really? I dunno. Everyone has their own dealbreakers. Some Jewish people will only date other Jewish people because it's really important to them that their partner shares their religious beliefs; others can sweat it. It's not a matter of tolerance so much as a matter of priorities. Me, I can (and did) date a guy who was for the death penalty, and there are a bunch of other issues I could agree to disagree one, but I'd take a vow of chastity before I slept with a guy that was pro-life. Because if he were to get me pregnant, his politics would be kind of a huge freaking deal. I couldn't date someone against gay or interracial marriage because, yes, I would consider that person a bigot.
In conclusion: yeah, I don't think you can necessarily make calls about a person's tolerane or lack thereof based on what the will or won't tolerate when sex is involved. I knew a girl who was 5'11 who wouldn't go out with any guy shorter than her, but I wouldn't say she was intolerant of short people (or, um, average sized people).
Posted by: Isabel | Aug 20, 2007 3:16:05 AM
Of course. Liberals must love conservatives as they are being killed by them, or else they are bigots. Republican logic at work.
Posted by: Murphy | Aug 20, 2007 3:52:27 AM
I think the point is that these relations are intimate, the decisions are intimate, and the criteria is personal. I think what's been bothering me about this topic, and some of the comments, is this sense that we can decide what's right for others in how to judge their relationships, be it Mary Matalin and James Carville, or Kirchick's dashed hopes of finding people across the political spectrum. When you are in the situation of dealing intimately with someone one-on-one, I don't think any of this is abstract, and one's previously abstract notions - I wouldn't date a communist, an Asian, a conservative, etc - can become kind of moot when dealing in actual events. I'm often surprised by the reality of who I connect with, and who I don't... but being open to the idea of new experiences and meeting new, different people isn't some sort of abstraction to me. It's how I am. If you put a lot of limits on who's going to be acceptable - and I have friends I love dearly who do this - what you get is going to be, well, limited. I wouldn't automatically call that intolerant, but my own bias is for less limits. I think the experiences you get are richer that way. But that's me. And I don't necessarily think other people are bad or wrong for having the limits they have, since that, too, seems limiting and judgmental to me.
Posted by: weboy | Aug 20, 2007 7:09:15 AM
Based on a failed relationship, that Kirchik himself acknowledges was going nowhere, all liberals are inherently intolerant of the political beliefs of others. I think I would interpret what happened differently- based on the fact that Kirchick appears to have the social skills of an amoeba, many people would not want to engage in a long-term relationship with him. I wish him luck with the new BF because anything else will result in more whiny articles about how people don't give him a break.
Posted by: Hawise | Aug 20, 2007 7:47:48 AM
Sanpete -- well sure, I probably am cynical, but to describe me as "wallowing in hate" is going a bit far. And yeah, I'm not Ezra. There's a genuine sweetness and emotional generosity that shines through in Ezra's writings and on this blog, even when (as is often the case) he voices strong opinions. And I agree, that quality is certainly part of what makes this blog so appealing and welcoming.
I'm angrier than Ezra is, and certainly bitchier. But I like to think I'm a meanie only towards people who eminently deserve it. In my judgment, James Kirchick, Mary Matlin, and James Carville deserve it.
As for anon - don't you be hatin' on my girl Amanda. Actually, anon, I think you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Denouncing patriarchy, sexist assholes, and oppressive religious doctrines is not even close to being "bigotry" -- in fact, it's quite the opposite.
I'm a married Catholic woman who cheerfully sucks dick and though I don't always agree with Amanda, I have never once felt slighted or offended by a single word she has written. I think Amanda is a brilliant, fearless, and deeply humane writer, and I'm honored she chose to participate in this thread.
Posted by: Kathy G. | Aug 20, 2007 8:06:59 AM
I don't really understand entirely when politics moved so far up the laundry list as to be the deciding issue in dating.
It's the selection bias that comes from reading webloggers. A lot of us are activists. A lot of us are out on the street campaigning for the candidate of our choice. A lot of us are directly affected by political decisions. Political issues are more tangible for the people you've been reading lately who are discussing these things.
There are plenty of people for whom the issue doesn't come up or is more of an extraction. Those are probably most people. For the people you read online, it's more tangible-- if it weren't tangible, then they probably wouldn't be online writing about it.
Sanpete, your problem is that you have no understanding of our moral place in life. Human beings are personally capable of acting like "nice, normal people" with "good intentions" and yet act completey immorally. And it's precisely the trap that people fall into because they tell themselves "I mean well." There is no "mean well." A person might be a good husband and father, but the instant he starts talking about how we need to torture people, he's acting immorally. You never seem to draw those lines and your statements amount to nothing more than "the ends justify the means," which is what we were taught is precisely the mindset we need to avoid, if we're to be moral actors.
The arguments drove the woman involved crazy, but I found it rather exhilarating because we were having open, deep discussions
Sanpete, perhaps, looking a bit deeper inside yourself, you should perhaps have realized that what you perceived to be "open, deep discussions" were just exercises in aggravating sophistry.
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 20, 2007 8:27:54 AM
more an an extraction
Uh, abstraction.
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 20, 2007 8:52:11 AM
Heh. He's a gay Nice Guy™.
Posted by: Nick | Aug 20, 2007 8:58:45 AM
I do love that Fred Jones, who has mental disorders that cause him to stalk women and harass people and who is so eaten up with hate that he will do everything in his power to sneak onto message boards where he has been repeatedly banned for sheer, unadulterated seething evil, thinks he can "diagnose" me. Get help, stalker boy.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Aug 20, 2007 9:29:15 AM
I don't really understand entirely when politics moved so far up the laundry list as to be the deciding issue in dating. I think if you find someone smart, interesting and easy to talk to (and, well, sexually compatible), the specific views are not necessarily deal breakers.
Again, those things are pretty much mutually exclusive from being a conservative. Politics isn't a game. Comparing it to tastes in food is insulting. If you think that Democrat or Republican is the difference between "likes Mexican food" or "prefers Thai food", I invite you to take a trip to Iraq and start asking people how they feel about our mild, inconsequential political system.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Aug 20, 2007 9:33:40 AM
Amanda- several people who post here- weboy and Sanpete to name two- see politics as a game. This isn't the first time they have expoused variations on this theme. They see all of this as light conversation.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 20, 2007 9:38:40 AM
and get ready for the baraged about how you shouldn't point out what they are doing because you aren't discussing the "arguments."
Posted by: akaison | Aug 20, 2007 9:41:06 AM
It seems like people will put up with abhorrent/silly views in direct proportion to how attractive the person who holds those views happens to be. While in college I dated the the second in command of the young republicans, she was really cute which seemed to make most of the silly crap that came out of her mouth OK. My friends figured it out and used to encourage her to go on racist rants just to watch me cringe, eventually I got to where I couldn't take it anymore. This is how a lot of relationships go when you first meet someone you will put up with a lot but as the novalty wears off so does the ability to look th other way when they do or say something stupid.
Unfortunately for this James person he is either so obnoxious that he cannot get anyone to overlook it even for a short time, or he is so repulsive that the novalty wears off before he says "hi"
One more thing, as a peice of advice to James, those young repubs who tell you they are straight, their eyes are telling you they are not. Start there.
Posted by: bryce | Aug 20, 2007 9:58:42 AM
So, are conservative evangelical christians intolerant, when they refuse to date women who are not conservatice evangelical christians? I mean a many conservative evangelical women share beliefs with conservative catholic women, they are pro-life, anti-birth control. But many evangelical christians believe catholics are hell bound, so even though they share common beliefs, they won't share their life with someone they won't see in heaven.
Is that intolerant, or is that a reasonable expectation for a relationship?
Posted by: Aeryl | Aug 20, 2007 10:24:17 AM
So is there any criteria for rejecting a sexually intimate relationship with another, other than sexual desirability itself, that wouldn't qualify as "intolerance" under this novel interpretation?
People's values, political and otherwise, are a reflection of who they are as a person. While who they are may be irrelevant if all you are interested in is "hot sex", there could hardly be anything more relevant if you're interested in an emotionally sustainable relationship.
I can't decide what's more pathetic, attempting to spin a personal romantic dissapointment into a profound comment on the presumed intolerance of liberals, or those who attempt to spin such male hysterics as reasonable. "You're intolerant because you refuse to limit your judgement of me to the sole criteria of physical desire! Nothing should matter except the fact that I bring flowers and candy every time I want you to do me! Hypcrite! Bigot!"
More to the point, Kirchik's ex can't accurately be described as intolerant since he didn't reject the possibility of a relationship out of hand. He gave it a try and it just didn't work out. If we accepted the definition of intolerance as Kirchik has framed it, we'd end up arguing that any attempt to find a mate with compatible values is a sign of "intolerance."
Posted by: WB Reeves | Aug 20, 2007 10:30:02 AM
I think the point is that these relations are intimate, the decisions are intimate, and the criteria is personal.
Yes, I agree, although I'm firmly in the politics-as-dealbreaker camp, because to me the public person, the way an individual seeks to interact with the world that is often revealed by one's politics, is very important. But that's how I function; I've never been one to retreat to a cocoon of intimacy and ignore the broader worldview. Obviously, living in a conservative area of the country makes dating tough, but since I'm not as malleable & forgiving as a lot of women-- nor do I wish to be on these issues-- it saves everyone a lot of time & misery for me to avoid conservatives. My political policy is tolerance because in a diverse country of 300 million people, it's absolutely necessary, but being more discriminating in one's personal life is and should be a no-brainer.
Posted by: latts | Aug 20, 2007 10:40:01 AM
Kathy G.,
I apologize for hating on your girl, Amanda, though I do find it ironic you would refer to her as a girl.
The internet is getting thick with well documented cases of people, liberal, feminist, non-feminist, straight, gay, male, female, libertarian, conservative, religious, atheist, and others, saying that they have been very offended by Amanda's bigotry, as well as her out and out lying and refusal to take responsibility for her actions.
(She's paranoid too. Unless some comments were deleted here, I haven't seen Fred Jones post, so I assume (maybe incorrectly) she is speaking of my posts. I am definitely not Fred Jones. Amanda would like to put out the claim she has a stalker, when the truth is her behavior is appalling, and many people have written about it.)
From answers.com
bigotry, n.
The state of mind of a narrow-minded person who is intolerant of beliefs other than his or her own.
noun Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion: intolerance, prejudice.
Frankly, (pun intended) I think any person describes themselves as sex-positive and equates a penis to a spunk filled bratwurst (thank you for objectifying my body) and describes how she doesn't like blowjobs should have the self awareness to not post about how she feels about others giving blowjobs. Her judgmental posts about what married people do in the context of their relationship is incredibly ignorant, deeply offensive, and downright bigoted when you contrast that to how she claims to feel about the same acts amongst gays.
She has also displayed her bigoted attitudes and behaviors towards (as you acknowledge) Catholics, fathers, divorced fathers, and if you give read the blogs, apparently the gay and transgendered community.
If she's your cup of tea, well, okay, perhaps you may surf the google one day to find out how others perceive her.
Take how she worked with Ilyka Damen for quite awhile at Pandagon. Damen was a dyed in the wool, conservative red-state 9/11 nuke the brown people war blogger, but when she found feminism, she looked around for a blogger whose beliefs and practices were similar to her own. Fancy that Ilyka and Amanda found each other so simpatico.
As a lifelong liberal, democrat, and feminist, I can honestly say I find Amanda Marcotte has little to do with liberalism, democracy, and feminism. She's an authoritarian bigot who has temporarily thrown in with liberalism because that's where she finds most feminism.
Posted by: anon | Aug 20, 2007 10:57:40 AM
I think part of Kirchick's problem is living in DC, but not because its too liberal. DC is infused with politics in a way that no place else in the country is. If Kirchick goes to a gay bar in San Diego or Chicago or Baltimore, people won't reject him because he's a libertarian or a neoconservative. Most people won't have any idea what that means and probably won't really want to know. But the professional gay men in DC that constitute Kirchick's dating pool know about politics, think about politics, care about politics, work in politics. So, if your views on politics clash with most of that dating pool, its gonna be an issue for you. So, maybe he should explore dating people who don't care about politics.
I should also add that gay men are not uniformly liberal. There are good reasons why a majority of them/us are, but 23% of gays and lesbians voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004, which is a much higher percentage than, say, blacks.
Posted by: Joseph Hovsep | Aug 20, 2007 11:03:22 AM
Conservatism affects one's body and soul in the way that Dorian Gray's actions affected the portrait in the attic. Conservatives aren't aware of this, of course, and so they think that they are mensches with simply a different political perspective.
In reality, they are stunted spiritually and socially yet still they expect us to welcome them into the human family that they so despise and mock. Sorry James, you can't have it both ways.
Posted by: blaze | Aug 20, 2007 11:19:37 AM
Speaking of male hysteria, anon/Fred is another good example.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Aug 20, 2007 11:20:35 AM
I wouldn't automatically call that intolerant, but my own bias is for less limits.
I think thats the point of akaison's comments, the use of the term tolerance in describing these limits. You yourself said "I think the point is that these relations are intimate, the decisions are intimate, and the criteria is personal" which in my opinion is 100% correct where the conversion should end. People like Sanpete and Kirchick would disagree.
For my part, I wouldn't be involved in a close, romantic relationship with someone who thinks is OK to vote for people like George W. Bush and Mitt Romney because it would be entirely too stressful for me and I would die at 30 of a heart attack. Thats not tolerance at play, its self preservation!
Posted by: Adrock | Aug 20, 2007 11:55:05 AM
I think part of Kirchick's problem is living in DC, but not because its too liberal.
I think part of Kirchick's problem is that he is an ugly, neoconservative, bitch.
Posted by: Gay Boy | Aug 20, 2007 12:01:53 PM
Many social conservatives believe we'll be happier if we follow God's and/or Nature's ways in regard to sexuality. Edwards seems to be among them as far as same-sex marriage goes, as do the other Democratic candidates except Kucinich. All immoral people, of course. If only they were as good as you are, they'd see the light!
Sanpete, 99% of what you've contributed to this thread has been your usual kneejerk contrarianism and pointless yes-buttery, and therefore unworthy of comment. But this particular excerpt goes waaaay beyond that and lands somewhere in the realm of Pure Stupid.
You *don't* really think that Edwards and the other prominent Dem candidates are "social conservatives" just because they support civil unions rather than full marriage equality. As a gay man, I'm disappointed that the "viable" candidates don't all support same-sex marriage, but having watched them address the issue on the LGBT forum, I can assure you that no one sane person could possibly argue that this makes them equivalent to a Dobson or a Falwell. But that's how deep the hole you'd dug yourself had gotten, and as always, you saw no alternative but to keep digging.
It's fascinating, in a vaguely unpleasant kind of way--between your desperate need for attention and validation and anon's funny/creepy obsession with the Queen of Darkness of the Blogosphere, this thread has been a veritable laboratory of neurosis.
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | Aug 20, 2007 12:23:36 PM
Kathy, no one deserves to have their most intimate and dear personal relationship of which you're almost completely ignorant savaged by you, nor to have their reputation trashed by unsubstantiated rumor. There's no excuse for that. Show some empathy, and decency. I don't mind bitchy or angry in their places. I draw a line at hateful (how was it not hateful?), narrow, unfair, etc. I've read a lot of your posts here and know you're a thoughtful person concerned for the best for people.
I can see the qualities you see in Amanda, and they're admirable, but some of them stop cold when she's speaking of conservatives and religious believers with whom she disagree. It's a major problem for her in that it needlessly polarizes her audience (there are many anons) and often vitiates her logic (when she can't see more than one side, particularly, and so misses the truth about both her enemies and herself and her views). Look at the post she linked to from this thread for a striking example of the latter, complete obliviousness to how her complaints apply to both sides. She's a lot smarter and better than that, but hate makes us all fools, just not in the good ways love does.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 12:50:47 PM
Sanpete=troll
Posted by: akaison | Aug 20, 2007 12:57:44 PM
I couldn't date someone against gay or interracial marriage because, yes, I would consider that person a bigot.
Isabel, that makes all the leading Democrats bigots, of course.
I think there can be good practical reasons for restricting what kind of people one dates, but I think a lot of the restrictions we place on ourselves are due to narrowness in our views of others, and ourselves. (It happens that a woman I know who's 6'1" is happily married to a man about 5'6".) And certainly any blanket view that liberals and conservatives are so morally incompatible as to not be able to have successful intimate relationships without moral failure on one side or the other is pernicious.
Liberals must love conservatives as they are being killed by them, or else they are bigots.
Weird way to mix up what's at issue, Murphy.
Based on a failed relationship, that Kirchik himself acknowledges was going nowhere, all liberals are inherently intolerant of the political beliefs of others.
Not what he says, Hawise.
Sanpete, your problem is that you have no understanding of our moral place in life.
Tyro, as I've already told you, this is completely in your imagination. I've explained why your views make no sense. If you can make them logical, go ahead (you'd have to deal with the objections instead of ignoring them), but your complaints about my views are totally based on your misunderstandings. Anyone who can't understand the distinction between ends and means has a serious intellectual disconnect that will prevent understanding of most moral issues.
If you read what I've said, you'll see I haven't said or implied the ends justify the means, but in fact the ends do justify some evil means, otherwise there would be no possible justification for just war, for criminal penalties, for resisting evil by fighting, etc. You're completely muddled about this both as to my views and your own. You really need to sort this out.
Sanpete, perhaps, looking a bit deeper inside yourself, you should perhaps have realized that what you perceived to be "open, deep discussions" were just exercises in aggravating sophistry.
You'll earn the right to make that kind of remark when you've succeeded in understanding and refuting anything I've said here, or even making sense of your own views. Right now you're very far from both.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 12:58:20 PM
If you think that Democrat or Republican is the difference between "likes Mexican food" or "prefers Thai food", I invite you to take a trip to Iraq and start asking people how they feel about our mild, inconsequential political system.
Conservatives don't think that Iraq doesn't matter, that Iraqi lives don't matter, Amanda. They disagree with you about what to do in Iraq, but it doesn't follow that they don't care.
Amanda- several people who post here- weboy and Sanpete to name two- see politics as a game.
You're making shit up again, akaison. You lash out irrationally when you can't deal with the arguments. It's obvious I take these things every bit as seriously as you do.
Sanpete=troll
Grow up, akaison.
So, are conservative evangelical christians intolerant, when they refuse to date women who are not conservatice evangelical christians?
Many are, Aeryl.
So is there any criteria for rejecting a sexually intimate relationship with another, other than sexual desirability itself, that wouldn't qualify as "intolerance" under this novel interpretation?
You mean besides things like personal values, already discussed above, and other points of attraction, WBR?
Male hysteria? I hesitate to consider the implications of that locution. There is no anon/Fred. Anyone who can't see the difference is blind to some very obvious points of style and substance.
Kirchick may be completely wrong about his own relationship. This thread clearly shows that there's something to his broader point.
I'm firmly in the politics-as-dealbreaker camp, because to me the public person, the way an individual seeks to interact with the world that is often revealed by one's politics, is very important. But that's how I function; I've never been one to retreat to a cocoon of intimacy and ignore the broader worldview.
Neither are Matalin and Carville.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 1:05:41 PM
Sanpete, the essence of your argument is consistently, "even if they advocate immoral things, they're still good people if they mean well, and you should learn to accept them and value them ['tolerate', as you put it] as good people." Sorry, not happening. Lines have to be drawn somewhere, and no amount of sophistry gets them out of it. Trying to justify immorality as a positive rather than a negative puts you on a path where lies danger. The people who paritcipated in lynchings went home hugged their wives and children, and then went on a nice vacation together. Doesn't make them good people. They're people who failed a major moral test in life, and you refuse to accept that.
it needlessly polarizes her audience (there are many anons)
Shouldn't your issue, then, be with anon, who is being intolerant of Amanda?
You'll earn the right to make that kind of remark...
Sanpete, I think, everyone here can relate to your girlfriend's aggravation at dealing with what you think are "deep, meaningful discussions." You're a sophist who likes to argue and has a disdain for anyone who, you know, believes something. And no doubt you regard your ex-girlfriend as an intolerant bigot for deciding that her religious beliefs were incompatible with yours. I'm sure she's thrilled with your assessment of her.
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 20, 2007 1:09:41 PM
Kirchick may be completely wrong about his own relationship. This thread clearly shows that there's something to his broader point.it's the utter disregard for facts, honest communication (covered by wb)etc with sanpete.oopsOnly to the intellectually and ethicly incompetent.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Aug 20, 2007 1:10:36 PM
Posted by: WB Reeves | Aug 20, 2007 1:12:36 PM
Male hysteria? I hesitate to consider the implications of that locution.Hardly a surprise.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Aug 20, 2007 1:15:47 PM
tyro,
it is not just belief that defines his sophistry. it's the utter disregard for facts, honest communication (covered by wb)etc with sanpete.
and now that i know anon=fred i can appropriately realize i am dealing with a nutcase. hey fred still crazy i see. will you be reporting us to the federal govt this week?
Posted by: akaison | Aug 20, 2007 1:26:23 PM
It is perfectly fine to discount someone from consideration (for dating, fucking, or membership in your book club) based on their value system.
This doesn't necessarily match up with politics, but it often does.
It's not difficult to comprehend -- I learned this in Human Comm 101. Considering the self as three concentric circles: the innermost is values, which informs the next, beliefs, which informs the next, attitudes. (I would add that the last informs behavior.) It's perfectly possible to be intimate with someone who has differences in the outermost circles, but you cannot compromise when it comes to the innermost.
James is conflating all of these components as one. His partner likely recognized from the beginning that he could get on with someone who had different beliefs/attitudes, and decided to give James the benefits of the doubt on values, but over time as he learned his value system better, found it to be incompatible with his own.
James needn't take this as rejection because he votes Republican (assuming). It's rejection based on his value system. These two are not the same thing.
Posted by: amanda w | Aug 20, 2007 1:34:54 PM
but the point is amanda that they do overlap heavily. especially if say one is a gay man because its not abstract
Posted by: akaison | Aug 20, 2007 1:38:28 PM
No, I understand completely. It's not a game for you. I wouldn't be able to be with anyone who thought that the poor and disabled should just pick themselves up by their bootstraps either. You're perfectly entitled to be choosy when it comes to partners, and it's not a bad requirement to want someone who, y'know, actually respects you and your needs.
Posted by: amanda w | Aug 20, 2007 1:40:28 PM
Neither are Matalin and Carville.
Actually, I didn't mention them at all, so I assume you're saying that their public advocacy doesn't count as insulating themselves, although IIRC they claim that politics is separate from their home life-- which I personally would consider an unacceptable degree of compartmentalization and yes, a retreat. I will say that while I don't really care about their marriage one way or another, I do not trust Carville (obviously I wouldn't have any use for Matalin regardless) as a political operative because I consider him too much a cynic, a game-player, albeit very good with pithy comebacks. They may consider their relationship the best of both worlds, for themselves, because they can indulge their intellectual passions at work wile [presumably] not bringing too much work home, and the certainty that one of them'll have work no matter which side is ascendant is probably pretty appealing. But they are of course privileged enough for political matters to be mostly academic, and I would never model a relationship on theirs.
Posted by: latts | Aug 20, 2007 1:44:30 PM
The fundamental problem with the argument put forward by Kirchik is that it is made from caricature and false equivilance. Roughly, "If liberals say that nigger jokes are intolerant and ought not to be acceptable, that means they ought to date racists, otherwise they're intolerant hypocrites!"
Posted by: WB Reeves | Aug 20, 2007 1:51:24 PM
You yourself said "I think the point is that these relations are intimate, the decisions are intimate, and the criteria is personal" which in my opinion is 100% correct where the conversion should end. People like Sanpete and Kirchick would disagree.
I've already explicitly agreed with this, Adrock. It doesn't follow that because criteria are personal that they aren't also bigoted in some cases.
You *don't* really think that Edwards and the other prominent Dem candidates are "social conservatives" just because they support civil unions rather than full marriage equality.
They're socially conservative about same-sex marriage, Kvetch. Make all the excuses you want, but it doesn't change that fact. I said nothing about them being equivalent to Dobson or Falwell; that's your own muddled idea. The rest of your post is equally ill-founded and ill-reasoned, the parts that aren't mere name-calling.
Sanpete, the essence of your argument is consistently, "even if they advocate immoral things, they're still good people if they mean well, and you should learn to accept them and value them ['tolerate', as you put it] as good people."
No, Tyro, I've made no such argument here. They're good people for the same reasons you're a good person. To narrow what I've said to get to the argument you attribute to me you need to add the assumption that you're right and they're wrong, which of course it hasn't occurred to you to even question or recognize as an assumption. I don't justify immorality as a positive. You continue to fail to meet the actual objections to your view.
You condemn those who participated in lynchings, and rightly so. They failed a major moral test, as you say. But that isn't the only major moral test they had. And you're a fool of you imagine you aren't failing a major moral test right now in much the same way they did, through ignorance and ill will, or that you would have done any better than they did in similar circumstances. Your personality isn't so pure. All of this matters. You want to pay attention only to what's convenient to your narrowness. Same problem they had, really.
Shouldn't your issue, then, be with anon, who is being intolerant of Amanda?
Both, to the degree there's intolerance, but Amanda was the topic in what you quoted.
Sanpete, I think, everyone here can relate to your girlfriend's aggravation at dealing with what you think are "deep, meaningful discussions." You're a sophist who likes to argue and has a disdain for anyone who, you know, believes something.
Utter bullshit. I'm defending people who actually believe something from your narrowmindedness. Again, you'll earn the right to speak of sophistry when you actually succeed in getting something right, not before. You're the one who has consistently indulged bad logic here, not I.
And no doubt you regard your ex-girlfriend as an intolerant bigot for deciding that her religious beliefs were incompatible with yours. I'm sure she's thrilled with your assessment of her.
You have no idea what an ignorant fool you are.
WBR, you're back to pointless yipping.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 1:59:18 PM
wb
hence my post by dan savage of savage love. he perfectly explains that tolerance does not require that one be tolerant of the intollerable. tolerance doesn't mean surrendering judgement.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 20, 2007 2:02:23 PM
thats true amanda. one gets the feeling that weboy and sanpete post here because they like the intellectual pursuit, not because they care. hence the arguments they often make reflect a certain amount of sophistry and/or amoralness.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 20, 2007 2:14:44 PM
and now that i know anon=fred
Akaison, your capacity for projection and unintended irony is unrivaled. Anon is very obviously not Fred. Besides the obvious differences, they were posting at the same time here. Your frustration at being contradicted (or so you think) and not being able to deal with the arguments is what you need to focus on, not projecting your faults onto others. That just distracts you from what you need to address.
Latts, Matalin and Carville have most obviously not withdrawn into a cocoon in regard to politics and what they consider important about it. Your idea that public advocacy is a cocoon makes no sense. They claim not to discuss politics at home, which is another matter. You might regard that as a retreat, but it's not the same thing as not living out their values.
I consider him too much a cynic, a game-player, albeit very good with pithy comebacks. They may consider their relationship the best of both worlds, for themselves, because they can indulge their intellectual passions at work wile [presumably] not bringing too much work home, and the certainty that one of them'll have work no matter which side is ascendant is probably pretty appealing. But they are of course privileged enough for political matters to be mostly academic
But you're not cynical yourself, I suppose? You don't like Carville, judging from what you say here, because your project your own cynicism onto him. To them, I'm sure it's not cynical, but a genuine relationship based not in the least on your cynical theories.
Roughly, "If liberals say that nigger jokes are intolerant and ought not to be acceptable, that means they ought to date racists, otherwise they're intolerant hypocrites!"
Not even roughly, WBR. He implies no such thing.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 2:22:03 PM
Sanpete, they claim to leave politics outside their home life, which means either that politics does not matter in that context-- unsurprising given their socioeconomic status-- or that they make a special point of isolating their personal values from their political ones in order to function in an intimate relationship. That's fine for them and their relationship, but it is not acceptable to me and in my relationships. I do not admire people for whom politics is peripheral or something to be excluded from the context of one's personal life, which is after all my prerogative. You can and almost certainly do feel differently, but I don't think much of your attitudes about politics either... an opinion which, as you should know, you have as much right to ignore as I have to hold.
Posted by: latts | Aug 20, 2007 2:36:09 PM
Or to put differently, for a guy who treats politics like it doesn't matter, Sanpete spends an amazing amount of time talking about it.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 20, 2007 3:01:20 PM
As I think I pointed out in the thread that Sanpete linked to way back when, if politics is meaningful to you, if it is an integral part of a world view that defines your life and what you hold to be desirable and moral, I can't really see how you can have a romantic relationship with someone who is 180 degrees your opposite. This isn't intolerance -- which as someone wisely noted is more of a civic virtue -- but a completely understandable desire to have a love life that is harmonious with one's broader world view.
For many people, politics are not particularly important or self-defining. I think it is not uncommon for such people to have partners who vote the opposite way and the like.
But I suspect that for people who spend their time in this part of the blogosphere this is not apt to be the case and that it would be rather unpleasant to be involved with someone who has Free Republic or Little Green Footballs on their "favorites" list.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Aug 20, 2007 3:07:10 PM
Latts, how would you like couples to incorporate politics into their home life? Tax cuts for the kids? Prison reform? Don't-ask-don't-tell? You're very vague on this point. I'm sure Matalin and Carville incorporate their values into their home life. Again, they both obviously act on their values in public life as well, and not in a peripheral way.
I don't know what political attitudes of mine you think are relevant here, since you don't say. I obviously think politics and values are important, or I wouldn't bother posting about it. (It's funny that akasion can almost but not quite figure this out for himself.)
Mr. Nut, I've responded to your views on this in the other thread and above. I think politics is plenty important and self-defining, in important ways, to Matalin and Carville. But it obviously isn't the only important thing, and they can see beyond it in ways others are reluctant to allow themselves to do. The reasons for that reluctance are among the things at issue here.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 3:20:11 PM
The reasons for that reluctance are among the things at issue here.
It's not an issue at all, actually. Plenty of people marry people of different religious backgronds. Plenty of people decide that they could only marry a partner who held the same religious beliefs of their own. This, too, extends to other lifestyle issues and matters of values. We don't even think twice about the reasons for that reluctance/willingness because we consider such a range of preferences/must-haves/show-stoppers to be perfectly normal in the context of looking for a relationship of any kind. You're the only person who considers the expression of that reluctance to be unusual or unacceptable-- and that is because you can't understand that, for some people, ideology has consequences when it comes to behavior, how money is spent, personal consequences of political changes, etc.
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 20, 2007 3:25:02 PM
Conservatives don't think that Iraq doesn't matter, that Iraqi lives don't matter, Amanda.
So they claim, in the same way a church service throws out "Amen" every now and again.
When they argue, however, they implicitly place those lives below first, second and even third-order abstracts without even a compelling argument that those abstracts are served by shedding so much Iraqi blood. In practice, conservatives seem to be perfectly happy with other people dying - as long as they're other, brown, funny-named people.
Consider for a moment the justification for torturing people rounded up in Iraq in random sweeps as "stopping terrorism".
Conservatives don't like being painted as immoral warmongers. It hurts.
It also seems to be true for most of them on the Internet.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Aug 20, 2007 3:35:01 PM
Tyro, you still aren't getting it right. What I've said isn't as hard to understand as you're making it. Again, I've nowhere said that there can't be good reasons for values differences or other differences much more superficial to keep people from getting together. Again, I've explicitly denied that idea. Again, I've said that people nonetheless can and often do have bad reasons for the barriers they have, including intolerance, bigotry, etc. That people don't question these things is obviously not a good reason not to question them.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 3:38:30 PM
Phoenician, I've seen the tables turned in regard to concern for Iraqi lives in more than a few comments from liberals about withdrawal from Iraq, comments that give the appearance of dismissing the importance of Iraqi lives, if they figure in at all, in comparison to the importance of American lives. I think you see such things where you look for them. For the record, I think both liberals and conservatives do care, but sometimes they lose track of things, forget to put them in context, etc.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 3:45:48 PM
Latts, how would you like couples to incorporate politics into their home life? Tax cuts for the kids? Prison reform? Don't-ask-don't-tell? You're very vague on this point.
Oh, maybe in their approach to race, gender, socioeconomic class?- those are much less abstract issues than the more arcane policy ones you prefer to cite, and they're certainly critical, even definitive, ones in both politics and childrearing.
I don't know what political attitudes of mine you think are relevant here, since you don't say. I obviously think politics and values are important, or I wouldn't bother posting about it.
Actually, if you have any specific, deeply-held political principles (other than what look like concern-trolling attempts to civilize heathen liberals), I'm sure that many here would be interested in hearing what they are. After many months of observation, I'd put you in what's commonly called the High Broderism camp, but if you want to dispute that classification, there's plenty of bandwidth for clarification. Extra points if you call it The Sanpete Manifesto of Moderation, which I would find highly amusing if not persuasive.
Posted by: latts | Aug 20, 2007 3:49:19 PM
Sanpete, well, I said you're the only one who considers this "unusual or unacceptable." Forgive me -- you've claimed that it is bigoted. I am sorry for making the mistake and not realizing that you consider bigotry to be normal and acceptable.
Mr. Kirchick is not a victim of bigotry. Jewish people or devout catholics who don't date me are not being bigoted. If I spent every day compaigning for a candidate who was running against a politician who had my girlfriend as a staff member, it would not be bigoted if she broke up with me-- she would simply realize that it one should not put up with someone who spends his spare time trying to throw her out of her job. That said, you seem to enjoy picking a fight over it because, no doubt, you find it part of a "deep, meaningful discussion" when you grace us with your opinions.
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 20, 2007 4:01:04 PM
Oh, maybe in their approach to race, gender, socioeconomic class?
OK, latts, be more specific, especially about any point in regard to this that you think they're lacking in at home.
Actually, if you have any specific, deeply-held political principles (other than what look like concern-trolling attempts to civilize heathen liberals), I'm sure that many here would be interested in hearing what they are.
Hilarious. A great example of how people allow themselves to believe what's convenient to their prejudices rather than what's right in front of their faces. I post my views on substantive political issues and principles everyday here. I just posted (again, as I have many times) in favor of the immigration compromise that so many liberals either wrongly opposed or sat on their lazy hands about, because it's the only way to get citizenship for illegals. My first post this morning was about why we should support the Democratic Party even if it often disappoints progressives. I've posted countless times about why I opposed the invasion of Iraq and why we can't just leave now. I've posted over and over again about why we should favor same-sex marriage and not only civil unions. I've said many times that we should raise taxes, progressively. I've explained to abortion opponents why we should be pro-choice. How many more examples would you like? They're in plain sight all over this blog, on almost every subject. You allow yourself too easy a means to dismiss what you don't like when you ignore reality so thoroughly.
Tyro, I see that you're now trying to misread things, a sure sign that you're unwilling to reason, so I leave you to keep your narrowness of mind at whatever price you're willing to pay for it, including your rationality.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 4:16:01 PM
Tyro you are wasting your time. It's obvious Sanpete has some really fucked up mental issues.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 20, 2007 4:39:21 PM
OK, latts, be more specific, especially about any point in regard to this that you think they're lacking in at home.
No, I don't think so; I've learned that being more specific with you pretty much drives any discussion into utter meaninglessness. If every single Republican on the planet cannot fairly be called a racist, then none are, or you'll insist that I can't prove that racism is a factor in Republican political thought even though the party's demographics, urban policies,cultural preferences, and vote-suppression tactics are broadly designed to further disadvantage racial minorities.
I post my views on substantive political issues and principles everyday here.
Hmmm... well, I remember you once did prod someone who was anti-universal healthcare, and I almost died of shock. Beyond that, I can't really say what your principles are, probably because you don't talk about principles as a rule, preferring instead IME to annoy progressives with constant demands to refine arguments that are by definition broad in scope. I could probably read your posts and determine that you're not a Republican at the moment, but nothing you write gives any clue as to why that would be the case, or why you feel bound to devote so much of your online energy to whatever it is you think you're doing here. It doesn't seem to be particularly useful, although perhaps some commenters enjoy small & persistent challenges as an exercise.
Posted by: latts | Aug 20, 2007 5:09:16 PM
No, I don't think so blah blah blah
Suit yourself, latts. I was rightly suspicious that you couldn't back it up. You should at least admit that to yourself, and reexamine your views. Changing the subject (and misrepresenting my view in the process) doesn't really conceal the fact.
The other part of your comment is strange. I post as much about my principles here as anyone else, including you. Again, you're letting yourself off easy by believing whatever's convenient to your views, even if it makes no sense and is in clear conflict with reality. Suit yourself.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 5:29:04 PM
Yes, you're a rhetorical genius, Sanpete. Truly, I'm overwhelmed by your forceful precision, your impressively logical thought processes. In fact, this piece hardly does you justice as a commenter here.
Posted by: latts | Aug 20, 2007 5:37:45 PM
why does every thread turn into an exercise in dealing with sanpete's issues? there must be some therapist in your area sanpete- why not talk to them?
Posted by: akaison | Aug 20, 2007 5:49:05 PM
Again, latts, the only thing that allows you to excuse yourself this way (by focussing on my supposed lack of belief instead) is your willingness to ignore the reality of what I actually say here every day. You and akaison, and maybe some others who have similar preferences in defense mechanisms, might want to start a club, the Unreality Based Community.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 6:01:17 PM
There are really only a handful of deal-breakers in a long-term relationship that have to do with what you are, as opposed to how you behave in the relationship.
These are things like mutual trust and respect, and shared values and worldview.
It's hard to separate one's political leanings from one's values and worldview. Liberals and conservatives have very different values and worldviews; there's no way around that.
So a conservative guy who's frustrated because he keeps on getting turned down when he hits on liberals (or vice versa) has only himself to blame. He's treating values as if they were hair color or taste in cars.
I understand why he's doing this: it's easier to fight this bullshit battle than to take on 'his' party which is forcing his potential mates to stay closeted. But the fact that he's doing that reflects the importance of party as tribe in his own life.
His problem is, the party he wants to be a part of, doesn't like people like him.
Life sucks if you're dumb and desperate.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | Aug 20, 2007 6:01:50 PM
Sanpete,
I have several questions:
Do you think it's OK for me to choose to not date somebody because they have a body or facial features that just I'm not sexually attracted to?
Do you think it's OK for me to choose to not marry somebody who is very pro-life since I want the option of abortion open if I become pregnant while battling cancer?
Do you think it's OK for me to choose to not date somebody who votes in a manner which would deprive me of the right to an abortion?
Do you think it's OK for me to choose to not date somebody if they don't understand physics and I really enjoy talking about quantum mechanics before sex?
Do you think it's OK for me to choose to not date somebody if I just don't LIKE THEM PERSONALLY?
~Haydin
Posted by: Haydin | Aug 20, 2007 6:51:03 PM
For me, liberal or left-wing gays declining to date movement conservative gays makes perfect sense, and not in a fundamentally political way. The broader principle is simply "Don't date people who hate themselves or are engaged in self-destructive behavior." The conservative movement portrays gays as enemies of America, and seeks to curtail their rights and opportunities under the law. There simply is no way for a basically self-secure, emotionally healthy gay person to operate in that environment. Either they really do regard themselves as enemies of America, in which case they need to start making whatever changes are necessary to not hate themselves, or they're willing for other reasons to help the movement push them into second-class status. This is bad business.
But here's the thing. It's exactly the same kind of bad business as someone who won't stop running back to abusive ex, or who's diabetic but won't give up refined sugar or take their insulin, or who's badly in debt but won't manage their money. All of these are important aspects of life where the trouble almost always runs back to the seed idea, "I'm not worthy of anything better and don't deserve to expect a life free of this pain." It's wrong in every case. Kirchick needs exactly the same kind of support as a good credit counseling firm would provide for the person in debt, or a persuasive doctor would provide for the diabetic: he needs to get away from people who profit by encouraging hatred of him. In the meantime, every non-movement conservative has a certain responsibility to themelves and to all those who care about them not to get tangled up with one more self-loathing self-abuser.
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | Aug 20, 2007 7:24:41 PM
The last post reminds me of a common statement I used to hear when I would date guys such as described here. Often, as was also mentioned over at Americablog, I would hear something along the lines of "I am American first, gay second." As if it were an either or choice.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 20, 2007 7:33:04 PM
I want to make something clear. The problem with many of these guys is that there is a deep disconnect between what they think about how people should treat them personally, and how they think others should be treated. You can certainly see that in the rantings of someone like Andrew Sullivan if you want an actual real world example. "gay" is to be treated as separate from all other conservative arguments, but then the moral value of everything else the conservative movement says is sacrosanct. It's like they don't get that there is a link amongst it all. Even if one doesn't want to go to the moral question- certainly the judgement seems impaired, and I don't date people who like the wisdom to know better with these sort of things.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 20, 2007 7:3