Crude political generalizations, pt 2

Following up on a previous discussion/post on people's perceptions of right, wrong, and shades of gray, I point you to this Balloon Juice commentary on an absurd editorial in the National Review. The NRO's argument, in essence, is that the oppression of an undesirable minority (gays in this case) is a perfectly legitimate expression of free speech, while any dissenting opinion or effort to combat this oppression is a trampling of the First Amendment.

Or, put more artistically:

The logic, according to our repressed wingnuts, is that the first amendment struggle goes something like this:

Wingnut- “Homosexuals are filthy sodomites who should not have access to marriage.”

Evil gay person- “Nonsense. I demand the same rights as you and will fight for them.”

Wingnut- “Why won’t you respect my right to free speech?”

And there you have the wingnut understanding of the Constitution.

Look, I don't like name-calling and divisive language. I think that the electoral college system results in the illusion of a deeply-divided nation, of a irreparably damaged union of two warring factions - and this perception leads to further escalation of the name-calling and intolerance. I don't like this. But sometimes it's okay to call a spade a spade, and or in this case calling a crazy a crazy. I truly don't understand how these people can think this way, I don't think there's any way to change their mind, and so I can only hope that they become further marginalized and disenfranchised... which is exactly how they feel about me, a straight white guy who has sold his soul to that great demon, rational thought liberalism.


Published by


"O Whisky! soul o' plays and pranks! Accept a bardie's gratfu' thanks! When wanting thee, what tuneless cranks Are my poor verses! Thou comes-they rattle in their ranks, At ither's a-s!" Robert Burns - "Scotch Drink" 1785