The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Tina:

It's no particular surprise that this is a left-leaning blog. A glance at the front page tells you that. Guess who tend to read liberal blogs? Good heavens, liberals! Can you imagine that? So, conservative views are likely to be a bit outnumbered.

Except we are not talking about "conservative views" -- or at least I'm not. It's not a "conservative view" to point out that, actually, no, someone does not necessarily agree that a particular thing illustrates a given point. It's merely a disagreement. And this is, actually, exactly what I'm talking about.

It's not "us or them". There are more than two sides on any issue. This one included. But it's become more and more sharply us or them lately around here, in my opinion, as if, if you disagree, you must be supporting the opposite viewpoint instead of, you know, just disagreeing with a particular point.

If I'd always thought it was that sharp a line, I would never have kept reading here in the first place. I am saying this is a recent thing, this tendency for the most vocal posters to jump on anyone who disagrees with even part of their point and snark on them even when they're not being snarked at, instead of discussing the actual issue. "Obviously you're just a moron" is the subtext (and occasionally not-so-sub) in some recent comments, and it bothers me precisely because I hadn't seen this behavior until recently.

Now, as to the actual meat of the matter -- I haven't made up my mind one way or the other. I thought Doug brought up some interesting points that were worthy of being addressed in a less dismissive fashion. The CEO of a given company probably doesn't have a whole lot to do with what items get designed and marketed. He probably was not the driving impetus behind the design. Now it may turn out that he supports the attitude, but it may just be that he, like many other people, think it's just a firmly tongue-in-cheek joke.

As far a single donation to a Republican candidate, that doesn't make one a raving right-winger. Doug pointed out that this guy has donated to causes most people would see as liberal, too. But rather than address that valid point, and the question that went with it, people just dismissed that, too.

Why would people who aren't interested in touting an inflexible party line do this? Why be so dismissive and snarky, instead of saying something to actually refute the point, and attack the poster instead?

My answer, obviously, is that people have their dander so far up that they're jumping on anything that disagrees instead of giving it consideration. And that really does bother me, because up until recently, it's not something I would have thought of the people here, who generally have struck me as the type to think out their positions. I'm disappointed.

Feel free to not care. *shrug*

Hey, did I come out in support of Urban Outfitters' clothing line? No. Did I give any reason for you to assume I must be ignorant of it? No, but you did anyhow. Why?

All I said is that Doug made some good points that were worth more than the dis he got.

As to the rest: sorry, whether you like it or not, it seems to me there is a party line around here, or maybe I more mean a line in the sand. More and more often, it seems like (and please note the word 'seems' there; this is only opinion) that if someone goes against majority opinion, they don't just get disagreed with, they get hounded or dissed, and also that they get words put into their mouths. I actually do think it's a deviation from the usual open-mindedness I've seen here, or I've not had said anything, and I do suspect that some people's hackles are currently permanently up due to the overall political situation. Since I can understand that, I figured it couldn't hurt to point out feeling that way, since I'd also suspect people aren't really totally aware they're coming across that... hrm.... dismissively snarky?

But hey, if people want to snark and play conclusion hopscotch, I can't stop them. But I can choose to not participate.

Xopher, I could argue that you are being intolerant, because you're as much saying their religion is wrong as you claim they are saying yours is. (I don't think that's exactly what they're saying, either, but it's a fine line, so I'll leave it alone.)

But to answer your specific question: I have no problem with people who have a genuine belief homosexuality is wrong and want to explain that to people. Where the line is crossed for me is between expressing an opinion and hoping that someone might come to agree, vs. trying to force someone to agree. Someone who says, "I believe x and I want everyone to know that I believe it and why" is not really doing any harm. It's not until they get to "And I want them all to believe it and if they don't I want to try to make it so they have no choice but to believe it or at least pretend they do" that we have problems.

On the other hand, certainly, you're free to decide to avoid evangelists. Where I stepped in is where I disagreed with the way you characterized them, that's all.

Patrick:
"The point of my post was that it's pretty obviously in the interest of rich right-wingers to encourage apathetic cynicism among the young."

That may be true (although I don't know that it's fair to assume "the young" would be liberals, which you seem to be doing). But the point of Doug's posts was he's not sure that the CEO of Urban Outfitters qualifies as a right-winger or was somehow behind the release of the shirt, and since that was your specific example of the illustration of this point, I think Doug had reason to argue the interpretation of the example.

(I will lose all respect for anyone who uses the argument: "He contributed to Santorum, therefore he's a right-winger". I donate to Jewish and Catholic organizations, but I'm neither.)

It seems to me the closer we get to the elections, the less likely people 'round here are to be reasonable about deviations from the party line. I hope this isn't going to turn into one of those blogs I feel a need to avoid.

Xopher, you and I are just destined to disagree in Patrick's blog as often as we agree in Teresa's. You write:

Evangelism is the process of trying to get other people to convert. I maintain that this is intolerant, no matter how politely it is done, because it requires the assumption that the evangelist's religion is better than the one held by the prospective convert.

Evangelism has nothing to do with trying to get other people to convert. It has to do with educating people about what you believe in. It is true that it's generally done in the hopes that people will convert, or at least reconsider their religious path, but it's not inherently about conversion.

The word you are searching for (and, in fact, use later) is proselytization, a process you and several other people here should be extremely familiar with, in re: another thread.

They are not the same thing.

On top of which, the attitude you describe is not inherently intolerant. If someone truly, deeply believes in their heart that someone who doesn't follow their religion is going to suffer for all eternity -- and most (but not all) evangelist Christians are going to believe this -- then it's not intolerance that gets them wanting people to convert, but love and fear for one's fellow man. Yes, to you, the idea that only one religion can be right may seem repugnant, but some people do truly, deeply believe that Christianity is the only possible path to salvation. It totally bypasses concepts like 'intolerance' and goes straight to the gut.

I'm still not going to further discuss my beliefs on voting and the party system here, but I get the idea here that some people have settled on what is, in fact, a wrong set of assumptions about me, including repeating one I corrected earlier:

I'm not in support of the "Green Party", and I'm not voting Nader. I'm not in support of any party. I'm in support of -- sometimes -- individual candidates, of all parties.

I am not a disillusioned Democrat you can win back to the fold. I have never been a Democrat. I have voted for Democrat party candidates, but you know what? I've voted for Republican party candidates, too. And Green party, and Libertarians, and basically every party you can think of, except the Harold Washington Party and the LaRouchies.

I'm not asking people to let me convince them how wrong they are, or to let me choose their candidate. If you want to write here about why you support a specific candidate, I'm (obviously) still reading, and maybe it will change my mind. But browbeating me won't, or insisting I defend my choice. That just makes me more stubborn.

Now back to lurk mode.

Xopher: Why 'last time'? Because I hate discussing politics as a general rule, especially stuff like this. Because I know damn well that my positions are radical and centrist and therefore piss everyone off, and because I know damn well that most people have very strong opinions, and never the twain shall meet. I broke one of my cardinal rules.

But let's sum up, for the people over in the corner watching:

I believe the electoral system should be abolished. I think it once served a purpose, but now doesn't, much like daylight savings. I believe in a popular vote system. I realize that's not what we have, but to me it's all tied together. I think that the more people express a desire for alternate choices besides a two-party system, the more likely we are to get rid of both the conception that only two people should be able to run for President and that only two parties should make up Congress and that the idea of passing the popular vote along to another level is just silly. Therefore, I promote 3rd-party candidates.

I think it's a remarkably bad choice to support someone you don't agree with just because you disagree with them less than the other guy. I think throwing your weight behind someone just because the person you ought to be supporting has no chance of prevailing is a very bad idea, because that way, nothing changes. And it's not like I'm going over to the cafe' and being stuck with egg salad or tuna when what I want is ham, it's like I'm going over to the cafe' and being stuck with botulism or salmonella when what I want is ham.

If I don't like it, I can emigrate -- that's part of my freedoms. If I don't think things will ever change, then obviously the America that I feel patriotic to is dead and leaving its corpse behind is the best option. I don't even see how you can equate leaving with cowardice, frankly. Is it cowardice to break up with a lover when things no longer work? I think some mass emigrations from this country might wake people up. Remember that bit where I said I was a radical? Yeah.

Realistically, do I know that things probably won't change no matter how stubborn I am? Yes, of course I do. But I also can't help but feel if more people were trying to change them, they would. That's the neat thing about democracy, when it's working: a large enough group of people with the same opinion and tactics really can change things. Do I think that people would be far better off voting for the candidate they really want, and not the one they really want that also probably has the best chance of winning? Yes. I honestly feel that. Do I expect people to start doing it? Not really, but I can't help pointing out sometimes just why I hold the positions I do, and that's one of the reasons I posted in the first place: this is precisely the reason I hate the party system.

"I don't suppose you'd consider taking a look at your positions, instead? Maybe some of them could use a little tweaking, if so many people disagree so forcefully."

So, if you were to go to a principally Christian-right blog and post in support of homosexual marriages, and got jumped all over by the denizens there, would you take that as a sign you needed to change your opinion or would you just presume that's what you got for expressing your clearly-different-opinion in a group unified on certain points?

The condenscension I feel I'm getting here on this is remarkable. Obviously I must be ignorant or wrong-headed, or all you people wouldn't disagree with me, right? Sorry. I hold a different opinion. I expressed it. I don't want to argue about it anymore. You don't agree, fine. I'm not actually expecting to change anyone's mind by repeating how I feel over and over again, and that, back to the beginning, is why I usually just swing really wide of political debates.

Okay?

Xopher: No, not arguing any more is actually a clear expression of my policy to not bother arguing with people on points they aren't going to budge on, and taking myself out of arguments when I'm not going to budge either. But think what you like of me.

Peri: It's nice to know "If you weren't so ignorant, you'd agree with me" isn't confined to the far-right side of the spectrum. Also, check your assumptions. I don't want a third party. I want none at all.

David: Actually I am talking about neither cause nor effect. Just principle. My net result is that either way I don't get a candidate I support, except in my way, I'm actually voting for one I do, instead of tossing my vote towards someone I don't.

Ken: No, no. The Democrats here are united. Against me.

Last time I express a political opinion around here, I guess.

David, I would be repeating myself, but I'll do it once more to be civil.

I am voting for the candidate, whoever it turns out to be, that most closely represents and supports the issues I believe in. Period. It actually could be a Republican -- it hasn't been yet for President, but I voted for one for Representative once and have occasionally voted for them for state and county and city offices. It could be a Democrat; I've voted for them, too. But very likely it will be someone else, because I do not trust the Democratic or Republican candidates on average, because they have a solid history of promising one thing and acting in an entirely different way.

I don't trust Kerry. I don't trust Bush. I don't trust Nader. I don't know who else is confirmed to be running this year -- I suspect that won't be a static list for a couple more months -- but if I vote for anyone at all, it will be from the rest of that list. I prefer third-party candidates because I think that nearly everyone in office today is a liar, a cheat, and a crook -- there are exceptions -- and because at least someone else might be different.

I believe that Kerry is different than Bush. 'Better' depends on where one stands on trade-offs. So far, I haven't seen any reason to think that 'better' is the right word.

I may very well end up emigrating to Canada, but it won't be just because of Bush. It will be because of a collective 20+ years of slow erosion of what I believe the be the principles of this country, which have only been further eroded by Bush, not altogether by him. The man is clearly insane but he isn't acting alone nor is he the first to perform this sort of erosion.

BSD, "in spite all evidence to the contrary" is all a matter of opinion. One of the things I do love about my country is that I get to hold a different opinion. Less so than I used to, perhaps, but so far, it's still the case.

I submit for consideration: this argument wouldn't have happened the way it did if the voters of this country would ignore the two-party ideal, and go back to my original statement: I think we could do so much better if we abolished the party system.

Yrs in continued radical belief. -- T

One last thing:

I am not endorsing a particular candidate here. What I am advocating is people considering each and every candidate based solely on how close their views are to the individual voter's views. Not their party. Not their chances of winning. The actual candidate's stance and record on actual issues.

Now, I'm done. I ain't gonna argue this one no more.

dix:

"Third-party votes have at most a negative effect, taking away votes from other candidates."

That is precisely the attitude I am talking about. You are hung up on the two-party thing, in precisely the way I mean.

Look. You're convinced it's pointless to vote for someone beside a Demopublican because they aren't going to win. Why? Because you know that every other person considering that choice is likely to go with that same conclusion. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're so sure there's no way an alternate-party candidate can win that you continue to propogate the two-party system by refusing to vote outside it.

I am not taking away a vote from someone. The choice is not between my voting for an alternative-party candidate and voting for one of the Republicrats. It's my voting for a third party candidate or not voting at all. I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. I like my third evil much better.

I suspect that a great many of the millions of people who refuse to vote are doing so because they don't like either major-party choice. I wouldn't want to lay bets on a percentage, but I'd lay bets it's non-trivial. If the rest of the country, the part that hasn't succumbed to apathy, would stop supporting the two-party system, maybe more people would feel connected to the representation process again.

Or maybe not, but hey, every once in a while I have one of these moments of optimism.

Lastly... how can it possibly be 'throwing away' my vote to vote my conscience? Isn't that the precise point of voting? Of the entire concept of voting, no less? That each person gets to say "this is what I think is the right choice", whether or not anyone agrees with them?

Xopher:

It is not irresponsible of me to vote my conscience. Ever. You think it's irresponsible because you think Kerry is better than Bush. What if I don't agree with you? What if I think that Bush is an awful President, but I don't think Kerry would be any better... just different? (Presuming Kerry's getting the nomination, and I'm presuming he is.)

If I really ever believe the country was going to completely eradicate the rights of its citizens, instead of merely erode them to a degree theoretically recoverable from -- and I concede a second Bush term may help take us there -- I will simply emigrate. But it's not just Bush making these decisions. It's Congress supporting them. It's the entire Federal level of government being fubarred and using the Constitution in place of their Charmin. It would help to have a better President in office, but I don't really think Kerry is that "better President", just like I don't think Clinton was a particularly good President and just like Clinton, for all he was supposedly liberal, was also signing away our rights -- you may remember a little thing called the Communications Decency Act, or the Defense of Marriage Act. To me, who is better is not remotely drawn along party lines. It's drawn along the lines of what people say and -- more importantly -- what they do. People like to say Democrats and Republicans are obvious polar opposites, but the truth is, they're not, and quite frankly, I do not and will never fall into the camp that says "Bush is a Republican. I oppose Bush. Therefore I oppose Republicans, and therefore I must vote Democrat."

I would've voted for Dean; I was willing to believe his rhetoric might have some action behind it. I am not confident that's true of Kerry, and I do not plan on voting for him. Period. Any more than I would vote for Bush.

PS: Upon preview, I see another response has crept in. DM, you are making an incorrect assumption. Go back up and re-read. I don't support Nader, either.

My point here is about no specific candidates. It is about the process, the idea I run into every time there's an election that there's no point in voting for someone besides a Democrat or Republican.

Yes, there have occasionally been third-party candidates who have won office. I think that's terrific. I'd like to see more of it.

Pop quiz: how many people ran for president in 2000? How many are running in 2004? Hint: the answer is not 3 any more than it is 2.

Lastly: Hamletta? I don't owe anybody ANYTHING.

David M:

A little of both.

People view it as 'throwing away' a vote, because they're so hung up on the two-party system being the only successful model. I've done this rant here before, but it basically boils down to this: "third-party" candidates don't get elected because people don't vote for them. People don't vote for them because they're so sure that it wouldn't do any good. It's a self-perpetuating problem.

I don't believe I'm throwing away my vote. I believe I'm voting for the person I want to see win, and that is the correct way to vote. Basing my vote on who I think stands a good chance of winning to me sounds a lot like conceding defeat. "Better than the alternative" voters, or "my party, no matter what" voters, can feel free to keep voting that way, but I think they're being foolish, just as much as they think I am.

To sum up: If people would start voting for candidates instead of political parties, I think we'd be better off. Hence my new "kill the political party system" radicalism.

Hey, I don't want Nader as my President either -- nor Bush -- but I don't want Kerry as my President either, so, naturally I'm going to stick to once again voting for Someone Else. (I would've voted for Dean, though.) Am I throwing away my vote? Only because people are so hung up on this two-party thing.

This sort of thing is why I've moved from supporting third-party votes to now calling for abolishing the party system altogether.

Yr friendly wild-eyed Radical

I think the appropriate comment at this point regarding motivations and character is: Yes, of course Mayor Daley is a crook. But he's our crook.

As someone who, despite an 1800 mile distance, still considers herself a Chicagoan, I must say that little things like that are just a part of why I still consider myself a Chicagoan.

Chicago Catholics have typically been fairly open-minded on topics like this. Even where they believe things are wrong, they frequently come up with statements like Daley's. The late Cardinal Bernardin was also well-known for his willingness to discuss controversial issues and his examination of the differences between what one believes is moral and what one believes should be legislated.

(I come from a Catholic family, though I wasn't myself raised Catholic -- my dad is apostate; my mother was from a Protestant family. My family is the same way overall.)

You know, I have to wonder about the feasibility of a counter-suit, claiming emotional damage as a woman for being told there's something innately unpalatable about a breast.

After all, I too have suffered.

PS: is there an unclosed blockquote or something up there? The comments page seems awfully squeezed thin.

You know, I could get behind the persimmon-coloured dancing weasel, as long as the boa is in a complementary colour. It'd be a nice change of pace to know from the start our leader is...

Anyhow.

(Actually, I'm leaning towards Dean, too, and if you've been paying attention -- and you probably haven't, I'm not that interesting -- that's a big statement coming from me, Ms. "I Vote Third-Party and LIKE IT".)

(Apropos of nothing -- my "remember this info" stuff is being remembered again, despite earlier problems. Yay.)

"In 2002, the average CEO compensation package equaled $10.83 million..."

Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention in my $6 million reference that that was base salary, not counting additional forms of compensation.

I have frequently been known to say that I would happily take a CEO job for a single year and then retire on what I made. I could live pretty much my most extravagant dreams out on the interest I'd get off the base cash salary.

(Hey, I'm from a blue-collar family; my extravagant dreams are nice and lower-class.)

Kris wrote:
I don't argue with the proposition that there is intent (systemic) to keep people down, to make it difficult to get out of poverty. But Ms. Payne made a lot of choices that could have gone differently. She managed to run up $10,000 or more in credit card debt, but didn't choose to spend the $250 to get the dentures fixed? She incurred almost $20,000 in student loans to get a 2-year college degree, but couldn't find a job in her field? She apparently accepted a minimal divorce settlement, and it's at least implied that she could have received more. Where are her kids, why aren't they helping her?


In order: Quite possibly she ran up the credit-card debt for things she thought were necessities -- I know it doesn't say, but I know an awful lot of people who have used their cards for basics like food and electricity when they weren't working.

A two-year college degree is approximately worth the air it displaces in terms of getting a job. The article itself specifically addresses this point, by the way.

When you're going through a divorce, you aren't always able to think about the fiscal side of things because the emotional are too strong. People get screwed over this way all the time.

And her kids? The article mentions they helped her with several things, but for all we know, they're in the same financial straits as she is.

I felt compelled to answer this because I detected a certain faint aroma of "People in poverty are there because of their own choices," which sort of defeats the whole article's point, which is: that's not necessarily true, a fact I can attest to personally (though I did get out myself, but there's an element of luck in it and I didn't have three kids -- one disabled -- to worry about). Even though you say straight out that's not what you think, it still comes across in that fashion to me. But I admit that this one's an easy button to push.

I've seen the effects of people who make stupid choices (I've occasionally been that person, though thankfully rarely) or who want the prize without the work, and it looks a lot different than this story to me.

I agree we need more small businesses.

Want it to happen? Patronize them in favor of larger ones where possible. Even if it means going out of your way or paying a little* more, because those two items are self-correcting given more support of small business.

(This is a semi-annual rant of mine, to go along with the "vote third-party" rant, which btw, consider mentioned now that it's an election year.)

*"A little" depends on your fiscal situation and the price of the item alike, of course, but I'm always willing to pay a couple percent more if necessary, since I think of that as normal price fluctuation based on sunspots anyhow. Like, say, $1 even for a soda instead of 95c so I can patronize my mom-and-pop shop instead of the Big Chain, or $50 more for a computer assembled in a 5-person tech company instead of going to Best Buy. Sometimes it's not possible, but it's possible more often than people think IMO.

Comment statistics for Tina on the Electrolite blog

Total: 41 comments. View all these comments on a single page.